Jump to content


Aim Bug?


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

kbb07142 #1 Posted 29 September 2017 - 01:05 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33383 battles
  • 282
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    10-30-2013

Sometimes i get this really awkward bug in my aiming reticule.

 

The aiming circle looks massive when viewing from 3rd person (like it covers the entire screen).

But when in sniper mode is reduces, but the aiming circle will then not shrink further due to aim time etc.

 

However the gun appears to be 100% accurate, as in the aiming circle has no affect on where your shot goes and it will always go dead centre (but not sure on this though)

 

Picture attached and will attach a reply later

 

http://wotreplays.eu...kbb07142-fv215b

Attached Files

  • Attached File   shot_014.jpg   1.7MB

Edited by kbb07142, 29 September 2017 - 01:07 AM.


HugSeal #2 Posted 29 September 2017 - 01:30 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22717 battles
  • 2,098
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View Postkbb07142, on 29 September 2017 - 01:05 AM, said:

Sometimes i get this really awkward bug in my aiming reticule.

 

The aiming circle looks massive when viewing from 3rd person (like it covers the entire screen).

But when in sniper mode is reduces, but the aiming circle will then not shrink further due to aim time etc.

 

However the gun appears to be 100% accurate, as in the aiming circle has no affect on where your shot goes and it will always go dead centre (but not sure on this though)

 

Picture attached and will attach a reply later

 

http://wotreplays.eu...kbb07142-fv215b

 

It will not get larger because in sniper view there is a limit to how big the aim circle can be. That is why it sometimes takes time for it to begin shrinking while in sniper view. The circle starts shrinking as soon as you start aiming but it wont show until it is smaller than the size limit.

 

As for it being 100% accurate. Nope, dead wrong and probably jsut a deviation due to rng and small sample size. Thing is, even when an extremely bloomed out aiming circle dead center is still part of it. It is just more unlikely that the shot will go there. Unlikely, not impossible.

 

Unless you have some mod messing things up though ofc.


Edited by HugSeal, 29 September 2017 - 01:39 AM.


Userext #3 Posted 29 September 2017 - 01:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View Postkbb07142, on 29 September 2017 - 01:05 AM, said:

Sometimes i get this really awkward bug in my aiming reticule.

 

The aiming circle looks massive when viewing from 3rd person (like it covers the entire screen).

 

That's just lag

 

View PostHugSeal, on 29 September 2017 - 01:30 AM, said:

small sample size

 

you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row because there is no RNG reversal system to stop that from happening so samples are unimportant.



Spurtung #4 Posted 29 September 2017 - 06:06 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 02:45 AM, said:

you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row because there is no RNG reversal system to stop that from happening so samples are unimportant.

:teethhappy::teethhappy::teethhappy:

 

Tell me more.:popcorn:



jabster #5 Posted 29 September 2017 - 07:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,667
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

 

That's just lag

 

 

you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row because there is no RNG reversal system to stop that from happening so samples are unimportant.

 

True. For example I've got a rigged coin which I proved by flipping it once.

Yaccay #6 Posted 29 September 2017 - 09:56 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33179 battles
  • 2,021
  • [4TL] 4TL
  • Member since:
    11-21-2012

It happend to me once or twice.

It is just a bug.



Userext #7 Posted 29 September 2017 - 10:12 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 06:06 AM, said:

:teethhappy::teethhappy::teethhappy:

 

Tell me more.:popcorn:

 

Mate you may laugh but that's how probability works. Throw a dice on the ground there is 1/6 chance the number 1 will come up. Doesn't matter if you throw it 1000 times or 5000 times, it's still 1/6 chance.

I know many fail to understand probability but come on your math can't be that bad.



Spurtung #8 Posted 29 September 2017 - 10:29 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Mate you may laugh but that's how probability works. Throw a dice on the ground there is 1/6 chance the number 1 will come up. Doesn't matter if you throw it 1000 times or 5000 times, it's still 1/6 chance.

I know many fail to understand probability but come on your math can't be that bad.

 

Yes, the probability of getting 1 when throwing a fair dice is indeed 1/6.

That probability decreases significantly if you try to claim you can get the same result in 10 consecutive throws, so you can imagine what happens after 1000 times.

You know, like your "you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row" ridiculous claim, it's extremely unlikely, and when you consider how RNG really works, completely impossible.



jabster #9 Posted 29 September 2017 - 10:36 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,667
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

 

Mate you may laugh but that's how probability works. Throw a dice on the ground there is 1/6 chance the number 1 will come up. Doesn't matter if you throw it 1000 times or 5000 times, it's still 1/6 chance.

I know many fail to understand probability but come on your math can't be that bad.

 

That depends on how many sides the die has surely?

Userext #10 Posted 29 September 2017 - 10:40 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

Yes, the probability of getting 1 when throwing a fair dice is indeed 1/6.

That probability decreases significantly if you try to claim you can get the same result in 10 consecutive throws, so you can imagine what happens after 1000 times.

You know, like your "you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row" ridiculous claim, it's extremely unlikely, and when you consider how RNG really works, completely impossible.

 

Probability never hits 0 though. RNG doesn't take into consideration as to how many times your shots landed dead in the center.

What you need to understand is statistics and probability are two seperate things that don't effect eachother. So, throwing the dice a thousand times won't change the possibility of getting "1" each time.

You may hit dead in the center a thousand times and that would give you %100 chance based on the statistics but the real chance of hitting it in the dead center would still be the amount it is.

 

I know what you are basing your arguement on. It's the multiplation of porbability but that only effects statistical wise. You may see it as reoccurring matters where the chance gets slimmer each time but the program sees them as seperate matters and each time you take a shot, your chances will stay the same.

 

edit:

View Postjabster, on 29 September 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

 

That depends on how many sides the die has surely?

 

yes obviously 1/x

 


Edited by Userext, 29 September 2017 - 10:40 AM.


Spurtung #11 Posted 29 September 2017 - 10:51 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Probability never hits 0 though. RNG doesn't take into consideration as to how many times your shots landed dead in the center.

What you need to understand is statistics and probability are two seperate things that don't effect eachother. So, throwing the dice a thousand times won't change the possibility of getting "1" each time.

You may hit dead in the center a thousand times and that would give you %100 chance based on the statistics but the real chance of hitting it in the dead center would still be the amount it is.

 

I know what you are basing your arguement on. It's the multiplation of porbability but that only effects statistical wise. You may see it as reoccurring matters where the chance gets slimmer each time but the program sees them as seperate matters and each time you take a shot, your chances will stay the same.

Of course it does, you're not dealing with a true RNG, the first clue to that is that's it's capped to a 50% variation.

Oh I need to understand that? Wow, it never occurred to me those were 2 different fields and one relies on the other.

Throwing it 1000 times won't affect the probability for each time, of course it won't. But you're claiming consistent results in a row, and that's a completely different scenario. Yes, statistically speaking, that is a valid outcome, as is any other that can be defined with the variables at hand, but the probability of that happening when using the kind of RNG that's being used? Exactly 0.



Userext #12 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:00 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

Of course it does, you're not dealing with a true RNG, the first clue to that is that's it's capped to a 50% variation.

Oh I need to understand that? Wow, it never occurred to me those were 2 different fields and one relies on the other.

Throwing it 1000 times won't affect the probability for each time, of course it won't. But you're claiming consistent results in a row, and that's a completely different scenario. Yes, statistically speaking, that is a valid outcome, as is any other that can be defined with the variables at hand, but the probability of that happening when using the kind of RNG that's being used? Exactly 0.

 

Mate unless they rigged RNG to force it, not to repeat the same result, probability isn't 0. Multiplication of probability only can be used for cases where the outcome is effected by the amount of times it occured. There are cases of probability where each test/roll is seperated from the test group thus can't have an overall probability.



Spurtung #13 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:05 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Mate unless they rigged RNG to force it, not to repeat the same result, probability isn't 0. Multiplication of probability only can be used for cases where the outcome is effected by the amount of times it occured. There are cases of probability where each test/roll is seperated from the test group thus can't have an overall probability.

*sigh*

 

jabster, want to take over?



jabster #14 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,667
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

*sigh*

 

jabster, want to take over?

 

Personally I'd just have mentioned what has any of this got to do with sample size not mattering.

HugSeal #15 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22717 battles
  • 2,098
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

*sigh*

 

jabster, want to take over?

 

You are the one arguing that a very tiny probability is the same as zero probability.

Spurtung #16 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:18 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostHugSeal, on 29 September 2017 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

You are the one arguing that a very tiny probability is the same as zero probability.

 

I didn't say that. I said the probability of WG's RNG to give the same result 1000 times in a row is 0.

Spurtung #17 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:19 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postjabster, on 29 September 2017 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

Personally I'd just have mentioned what has any of this got to do with sample size not mattering.

 

You did, I did, he ignored us both on it.

Userext #18 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View Postjabster, on 29 September 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

 

Personally I'd just have mentioned what has any of this got to do with sample size not mattering.

 

View PostHugSeal, on 29 September 2017 - 01:30 AM, said:

 

As for it being 100% accurate. Nope, dead wrong and probably jsut a deviation due to rng and small sample size.

 

This is why ^

 

Also,

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

You did, I did, he ignored us both on it.

 

Please show me in which comment you asked what does this have anything to do with sample size

Allow me to quote them all so you can pick your favourite

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 06:06 AM, said:

:teethhappy::teethhappy::teethhappy:

 

Tell me more.:popcorn:

 

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

Yes, the probability of getting 1 when throwing a fair dice is indeed 1/6.

That probability decreases significantly if you try to claim you can get the same result in 10 consecutive throws, so you can imagine what happens after 1000 times.

You know, like your "you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row" ridiculous claim, it's extremely unlikely, and when you consider how RNG really works, completely impossible.

 

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

Of course it does, you're not dealing with a true RNG, the first clue to that is that's it's capped to a 50% variation.

Oh I need to understand that? Wow, it never occurred to me those were 2 different fields and one relies on the other.

Throwing it 1000 times won't affect the probability for each time, of course it won't. But you're claiming consistent results in a row, and that's a completely different scenario. Yes, statistically speaking, that is a valid outcome, as is any other that can be defined with the variables at hand, but the probability of that happening when using the kind of RNG that's being used? Exactly 0.

 

Go ahead, tell me in which one you wondered what does small sample size have anything to do with this thread. Be my guest

 

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

 

I didn't say that. I said the probability of WG's RNG to give the same result 1000 times in a row is 0.

 

Unless you have a WG certified proof, repeating it won't make it true

 

 

 

 

 



HugSeal #19 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:31 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22717 battles
  • 2,098
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

 

I didn't say that. I said the probability of WG's RNG to give the same result 1000 times in a row is 0.

 

Why is that? Just personal curiosity but what is the reason that WGs RNG-implementation cannot roll similar hitpoints multiple times in a row? Have WG documented taht somewhere, do you hae insight into their RNG or is it something true of all RNGs and if so it would be fun to see the documentation.

 

And you are actually arguing that, within the subject of WGs RNG and game. You are arguing that something that should be a very tiny probability in the implementation is a de facto zero probability.


Edited by HugSeal, 29 September 2017 - 11:34 AM.


Spurtung #20 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:35 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 64598 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostUserext, on 29 September 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Please show me in which comment you asked what does this have anything to do with sample size

Allow me to quote them all so you can pick your favourite

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 06:06 AM, said:

:teethhappy::teethhappy::teethhappy:

 

Tell me more.:popcorn:

 

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

Yes, the probability of getting 1 when throwing a fair dice is indeed 1/6.

That probability decreases significantly if you try to claim you can get the same result in 10 consecutive throws, so you can imagine what happens after 1000 times.

You know, like your "you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row" ridiculous claim, it's extremely unlikely, and when you consider how RNG really works, completely impossible.

 

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

Of course it does, you're not dealing with a true RNG, the first clue to that is that's it's capped to a 50% variation.

Oh I need to understand that? Wow, it never occurred to me those were 2 different fields and one relies on the other.

Throwing it 1000 times won't affect the probability for each time, of course it won't. But you're claiming consistent results in a row, and that's a completely different scenario. Yes, statistically speaking, that is a valid outcome, as is any other that can be defined with the variables at hand, but the probability of that happening when using the kind of RNG that's being used? Exactly 0.

 

Go ahead, tell me in which one you wondered what does small sample size have anything to do with this thread. Be my guest

 

View PostSpurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

 

I didn't say that. I said the probability of WG's RNG to give the same result 1000 times in a row is 0.

 

Unless you have a WG certified proof, repeating it won't make it true

 

I highlighted it so you could see it.

 

Many people have recorded damage rolls. There are never even consecutive 3 rolls with the same result.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users